|
|
 |
 |
 |
| This is a rough attempt at comparing the performance of the Sony DCR TRV900 (3CCD) and TRV20 (one CCD) camcorder. It seems unfair to compare these two because of the obvious better color reproduction any 3CCD camcorder over an single CCD one. However, it is the feeling of some that the TRV20 can produce good color videos especially in good lighting condition. This is said to be as good as a 3CCD camcorders. Due to the price difference between these two models, some may opt for the cheaper TRV20 if they find that there is not much difference in video quality between them. The objective of the current comparison is to find out whether it is worth paying the extra money for the TRV900.. |
| Method: I mounted both camcorders side by side and set both to autofocus
and for most of the tests, also to full auto exposure. Recordings were
controlled on both camcorders by a remote so that both videos on both were
taken exactly at the same moment. Instead of pressing the start record
button, I used the photo button so that 7 seconds of stills were taken.
The subject chosen include outdoor scenes with very good natural light
and indoor objects against a strong backlight. Some videos were also taken
of dark areas to test the low light performance. No video lights had been
used. Both camcorders were without any filter or conversion lens.
Then, I captured still images from the video to the memory stick, add the data code in Photoshop and then save the files with a 50% compression. No attempt was made at changing the brightness, sharpness or the color balance. For some parts, I also used manual exposure on one or both camcorders. |
| No | TRV20 | TRV900 | Comments |
| 1 |  |
 |
Indoor scene under natural light. Full zoom. |
| 2 |  |
 |
Indoor scene under natural light full wide angle. |
| 3 |  |
 |
Indoor scene under natural light. Full zoom of a dark area. |
| 4 |  |
 |
Indoor scene under natural light. Full zoom of dim area with adjacent window. |
| 5 |  |
 |
Indoor scener against strong back light. Full zoom |
| 6 |  |
 |
Same as above with manual exposure to obtain pale pinkish color of the rag on the glass. |
| 7 |  |
 |
Same as above, manually increasing exposure further. |
| 8 |  |
 |
Outdoor scene in very good light. Full wide angle. The sky color is more natural in the TRV900. |
| 9 |  |
 |
Outdoor scene in good light. Full zoom. |
| 10 |  |
 |
Outdoor scene in good light. Full wide angle. |
| 11 |  |
 |
Outdoor scene in good light but backlight. Full zoom. |
| 12 |  |
 |
Outdoor flower at about 6 feet in good light. Full zoom. The flower is overexposed in some parts in the TRV20. I feel the TRV20 video tends to be too contrasty at times. |
| 13 |  |
 |
Same as above |
| 13A |  |
Manually lower exposure in TRV20. | |
| 14 |  |
 |
Indoor window with adjacent bright light. Full zoom. |
| 15 |  |
 |
Indoor window with strong backlight. Full zoom |
| 16 |  |
 |
Same as above manually increasing exposure to obtain brownish color of the wood. Severe color fringing in TRV20 |
| 17 |  |
 |
Same as above. |
| In conclusion, there is a significant difference in performance (in
terms of color balance) in the TRV900 over the TRV20, both in good light
and in bad light conditions such as strong backlight.
The TRV20 does not seem to have a very intelligent exposure algorithm when used in full auto mode. It seems to favour using a faster shutter speed (100) and smaller aperture (F4) despite relatively poor light but tend to use video gain to compensate. This will tend to produce more video noise. The TRV20 tends to produce a colder color temperature. The TRV900 is too sensitive in some parts in this test. Even with the 70% ND filter on, it uses F9.6 in some parts of the test and this may cause diffraction degrading the video. If I use manual exposure, I can force a faster shutter speed to open up the aperture so the diffraction effect can be eliminated. Whether it is worth paying the extra money for the TRV900 would be an individual decision. It depends on whether you feel the difference in video quality is worth the extra cost. I would favour the TRV900 not just for the better video quality, but also because of better exposure controls such as ND filter, aperture or shutter priority exposure etc. The manual mic level is also a very important feature on the TRV900 not found on the TRV20. |
 |
 |
 |
